Replies

Absolutely not! As discussed above, we can't say what the changes in precipitation show in regards to temperature. Also, few if any of the studies are designed to look for 20th century anomalies. These are all (as far as I can see) papers trying to study past events and they use appropriate methods for that purpose.

Not absolutely anything! There are plenty of proxies that are just temperature. The only debate is the global extent of warming in the MWP. I researched the examples you stabbed at above and found it wasn't just glaciers in Argentina (with possible precip influence) but climate compared to today (Cioccale 99). The Chinese example wasn't just cultivation but oxygen isotopes that are determined by temp, not precip. The stalagmites are affected by both temp and precip but the precip can be controlled (www.gsf.fi/esf_holivar/holmgren.pdf)

Admittedly, the data for global warming in MWP is not as strong as the North Atlantic, but it exists in the South Atlantic and South America. The others are wet and dry, or may have precip influence (e.g. Aussie tree rings). The Peruvian glacier shows some hockey stick characteristics, but also that today's temperatures are a bit cooler than the MWP. That one is certainly a temperature proxy.

In short, the evidence for MWP warmth is substantial but doesn't exceed today's temperatures by much except for N America and Europe. It was certainly global in extent and does not support the contention that the 20th century was warmer. At best it was similar in the early part of the century.

Well, lets take a look at where we are. You stated that the methodology of Soon was sound. I have presented numerous errors in it. From errors in how he interpreted data, to errors in how his methodology was established and finally to just plain wrong errors (i.e. saying someone said one thing when they clearly said the opposite). Any one of these is enough to doubt a paper. Taken together all three are devastating.

However I agree that he shows some papers that are legitimate attempts at reconstruction. If you want to look at these, great but that is another discussion.

You raise some very good points about stalagmites. Now, did the papers that Soon use follow this?

In regards to research on Cioccale, OK, what is your interpretation of it? I'll dig up a copy tomorrow and we can compare notes.